Decoding College Campus Dynamics:
An Assessment of Political Correctness’s Affect on the Learning Experience
Dana Frenkel
Political correctness, also known as PC, is a progressive American speech code
that regulates speech and actions in efforts to avoid offending certain categories
of people. The term has been a point of heated contention since the 1990’s,
however, little empirical research has been conducted, particularly on the
effects it is having on the current generation of students born into an age of PC.
This study seeks to describe a speech code on Baruch College’s highly diverse
campus, whether PC is a feature of that code, and what this code
reveals about classroom dynamics and the experience of learning. I intended to
interpret the meaning ascribed by those who produce codes and furthermore
ascertain whether or not the speech code contributes to students’ apprehension
in engaging in intercultural classroom discussions.
ANOVA (1)-Multiple Comparisons
Correlations
Mean
(I) What is your
(J) What is your Difference Std.
current class year? current class year?
Error
(I-J)
-1.792 1.083
Sophmore
Freshman
-1.792
.947
Junior
Sophmore
Junior
Senior
Hypothesis: Heightened intercultural apprehensiveness is positively correlated
with the use of political correctness as a speech practice.
Sig.
.626
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-4.77
1.18
.385
-4.39
.81
Senior
-2.775*
.933
.027
-5.33
-.22
Freshman
1.792
1.083
.626
-1.18
4.77
Junior
.000
.910
1.000
-2.50
2.50
Senior
-.983
Freshman
1.792
.947
.385
-.81
4.39
Sophmore
.000
.910
1.000
-2.50
2.50
Senior
-.983
.724
1.000
-2.97
1.00
Freshman
2.775*
.933
.027
.22
5.33
Sophmore
.983
.895
1.000
-1.47
3.44
Junior
.983
.724
1.000
-1.00
2.97
.895
1.000
-3.44
ANOVA (2)
Qualitative methods enabled me to document behaviors, attitudes, values,
motivations, and beliefs about communication operating within college
student’s interactions. In order to identify and understand the speech norms on
college campuses, I employed ethnography of communication (EC). I followed
Carbaugh and Hastings (1992) three broad stages of EC: (1) prefield work, (2)
fieldwork, and (3) postfield work.
(1) Prefield work entailed extensive reading on three distinct, yet related
concentrations: (a) ethnographic theory and methodology, (b) particular
intellectual issues derived from my research interests, in this case: PC,
communication apprehension, and intercultural communications, and (c)
local communicative patterns, on U.S. college campuses and particularly
Baruch College. Through the prefield work process, I was situated within a
general approach, concerning focused intellectual interests in the context of
a particular communicative code.
(2) Fieldwork activities then included generating data through participant
observation in 10 different Baruch College courses, and interviews with
students and a professor in the Communications Studies department with
an expertise in intercultural communication. I documented all observable
instances of speech behavior in Baruch, as well as communicative styles and
codes operating outside the college, for students may have reported a
"change" in communicative style when entering the college campus,
including its occurrence or non-occurrence, where it occurred, with whom,
in what language (s) and dialect(s), in which verbal forms, about which
topics, as part of what interactional sequences, and with what observable
consequences. I went on to analyze the recorded data, while continuously
reverting back to the readings.
(3) Postfield work improved on the initial analysis during the fieldwork phase as
I formulated it into written work intended for an audience (Carbaugh &
Hastings, 1992).
Political
correctness is right
N
1.47
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Between
Groups
9.540
2
4.770
Within
Groups
71.793
51
1.408
Moderate CA Apprehension
F
Sig.
High CA Apprehension
2%
3.389 .042
34%
64%
Total
81.333
1
.417**
53
Social constructs morph a structured system of cultural speech codes that S1: Let’s come up with a hypothetical. She-No, he is a bit talkative.
attribute value to communicative actions and reflect its belief system
S2: Why not “she”?
(Philipsen, 1995).
S1: I don’t want to come off sexist. I tend to get myself into a tight
corner.
“Knowledge of, and ability to participate in, a particular community’s
 “I’m a feminist, but practically speaking women have to take off
spoken life are not only resources for information transmission but are
if they want to have children.”
resources for communal identification, and communal being as well”
 “Not to sound racist, because I’m not, but black communities
(Philipsen, 1995, p. 14).
tend to be poorer”
“As diverse opinions are presented, interlocutors are asked to ‘tolerate’ a  “Frankly, to me, intercultural communication is advocacy and
range of views. This is often accomplished with prefatory comments like:
you can teach it or look at it differently if you want to, but why
‘I’m not going to argue with anyone’s morals but if that’s what you
not just add a little word that would make it possible for
believe fine,’ ’You’re entitled to your opinion…(and here’s mine),’ ‘You
students to have an accessible intercultural communications
have a right to your feelings’” (Carbaugh, 1987, p.41).
master?”
 “If I can speak freely, it was created for the reject students.”
 “It sounds bad, but get over it. You won’t always like what you
hear.”
“There is an implicit paradox here …between the the ‘right’ to speak
“He said, ‘I don’t know about advocacy. It might get us in trouble
opinions freely and the proper stating of them in a non-impositional way. with free speech.’ What he meant was that if we have a program in
In a sense the paradox involved an interaction of legal and cultural codes: advocacy we’ll attract activist type students who might advocate
the legal code giving American citizens a relatively unconstrained ‘right’
for something he doesn’t feel comfortable with. He doesn’t want
to free expression; and the cultural code offering moral guidance for
any headlines about this nice college that could get him as an
expressions deemed most proper within American society life. In the
administrator into trouble.”
Donahue scene, the cultural code constrains the practice of its legal
counterpart through the rules of ‘respect’ and non-imposition”
(Carbaugh, 1987, p. 45).
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
.005
43
43
Engaging in a group
Pearson
.417**
1
discussion with
Correlation
people from
Sig. (2-tailed)
.005
different cultures
N
makes me nervous.
43
55
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Low CA Apprehension
Based on your
experience,
people are too
sensitive to PC
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Intercultural Communication
Apprehension Measure
Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between heightened intercultural
apprehensiveness and the use of political correctness as a speech practice.
Quantitative methodology allowed me to use measures to describe and explore
relationships within the data. I conducted quantitative research through a) data
collection and b) data analysis. First, I generated a structured survey to Qualtrics
survey software to a research poll of human subjects made up of 75 Baruch
College students. The survey attempted to gage general communicative
behaviors, classroom communicative behaviors, level of comfort in intercultural
setting, through an intercultural communication apprehension measure, and
overall attitude towards PC. Using the data, I computed descriptive and
inferential statistics on IBM SPSS. I contrasted subjects’ responses, established
relationships in the data, and ultimately disproved my null hypothesis.
Engaging in
a group
discussion
with
people
from
different
Political
cultures
correctness makes me
is right
nervous.
Dependent Variable: I have become more comfortable with intercultural communication
through my college experience
Bonferroni
45.0%
People will judge me if I'm not PC
People are too sensitive about words
I view people differently when they are not PC
Both the quantitative and qualitative data suggest that PC operates as a speech code on
Baruch College’s campus. The survey reveals students’ belief that others highly value
speech acts and words that are in line with PC. Although they might personally feel that
others are overly sensitive, they too participate in the system as many admit to judging
others who are not PC. While it seems that PC has become an intrinsic feature of
general communicative behaviors, expectations for PC are heightened in Baruch
College’s classroom discussions. It is unclear whether this trend contributes to or is a
result of the overwhelming high and moderate levels of communication apprehension.
While the first Anova test reveals that students do become relatively more
comfortable with intercultural communication throughout their college experience,
from freshmen to senior year, it is important to note that the levels of apprehension
are still high as seen in the measure. This study does not determine a cause for this
relative improvement; however, the second Anova test rejects the null hypothesis,
which suggests that this improvement cannot be attributed to PC, considering that it is
those with low intercultural communication apprehension who believe that people are
too sensitive about PC in comparison to those with high intercultural communication
apprehension. Correlation coefficients further show that subjects who believe that PC
is “right” and strictly abide by the code tend to be more apprehensive in intercultural
settings. This can compromise the learning environment if students are tense and
hesitate to participate or contribute to classroom discussions.
The EC data has proven in agreement with these statistical results. Participants are
attuned to the weight of their words and partake in the speech code even if revealing
discontent. There is an understanding amongst participants to adhere to PC if they
want to be heard. This can be seen through prefatory clauses that justify their speech
acts by constantly emphasizing that the words are the opinion of the speakers and that
they are entitled to free expression. Furthermore, this speech code creates a
heightened sense of sensitivity that causes speakers to feel insecure in how others will
perceive them, which is also observable through prefatory comments. Speakers
understand that their speech categorizes them, and they therefore often opt to selfcategorize themselves before others have the opportunity to evaluate them.
These consequences highlight the American communicative paradox, which Carbaugh
(1988) saw as a battle between cultural code and legal rights. This dialectical tension
can be extended between cultural code and the premise of the university experience.
American undergraduate schools emphasize deconstructing boundaries in pursuit of
enriching and eye opening learning experiences, which is in part done through
diversifying the student body and faculty. However, when the dialectic emerges in the
ongoing discourse of the classroom, PC becomes a source of friction from the
participants’ point of view, giving rise to conflicting reports on the effectiveness and
satisfaction of the learning experience.
Future research would explore the cause of this relative decrease in intercultural
communication apprehension and determine alternative speech codes for managing a
diverse student body and in particular conducting more effective classroom discussions,
that would further decrease intercultural communication apprehension, and ultimately
provide a more enriching learning experience.
Carbaugh, D.A. (1987). Communication rules in Donahue discourse. Research on Language &
Social Interaction, 21(1-4).
Carbaugh, D. A. (1988). Talking American: Cultural discourses on Donahue. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Pub.
Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Carbaugh, D.A. (1995). The Ethnographic Communication Theory of Philipsen and Associates.
Cushman, D. P., & Kovačić, B. (Eds.). Watershed research traditions in human communication
theory. (pp. 269-292). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
For an extended list of references, please contact researcher at danamfrenkel@gmail.com